This public claim-control working paper studies candidate-history proposals that first define an admissible set of histories by a closure, consistency, or admissibility predicate. It asks what, if anything, follows probabilistically from that admissible set alone. In the terminology of the prior B1/S0 guardrails, the answer is negative: an admissibility layer is not yet a probability layer. B2 is therefore a no-go and audit-taxonomy paper for closure-only probability claims. It does not derive the Born rule, define a physical selector, solve Bell/no-signaling, supply an actualization rule, prove empirical equivalence to standard quantum mechanics, validate RRCF, Complete-History Selection, or any candidate-history framework, or propose an experimental residual. Its limited purpose is to state what an admissible set of candidate histories does not yet license, and to classify which additional probability-layer structures a later positive proposal would have to declare. The central negative claim is that admissibility is not probability. If a proposal defines an admissible class of candidate histories, then it has supplied an admissibility layer, not a probability layer. Any later probability claim needs an additional declared probability object, for example a countably additive baseline measure, a conditioning rule, a weighting principle with reference measure, a stochastic kernel, or an operational map, together with separate Born/no-signaling/no-hidden-postselection checks over the final operational law. B2 records four modest no-go claims: an admissible set alone does not determine a probability measure; conditioning on admissibility is not a derivation of probability; unconstrained reweighting is not automatically no-signaling; and sector-internal record consistency does not determine external sector weights. A short RRCF special-case audit template is included only to state the corresponding probability-gap result for record-reconstruction closure. It is not a construction of a physical RRCF criterion and does not supply a probability law, selector, actualization rule, Born derivation, GR/QFT unification, or prediction.This is Paper B2 v0.2e in the public guardrail chain A -> D1 -> B1 -> C0 -> S0 -> B2. It is a public claim-control working paper and no-go/audit-taxonomy note. It is not a positive probability theory and does not validate RRCF, Complete-History Selection, or any candidate-history framework.
This public claim-control working paper studies candidate-history proposals that first define an admissible set of histories by a closure, consistency, or admissibility predicate. It asks what, if anything, follows probabilistically from that admissible set alone. In the terminology of the prior B1/S0 guardrails, the answer is negative: an admissibility layer is not yet a probability layer. B2 is therefore a no-go and audit-taxonomy paper for closure-only probability claims. It does not derive the Born rule, define a physical selector, solve Bell/no-signaling, supply an actualization rule, prove empirical equivalence to standard quantum mechanics, validate RRCF, Complete-History Selection, or any candidate-history framework, or propose an experimental residual. Its limited purpose is to state what an admissible set of candidate histories does not yet license, and to classify which additional probability-layer structures a later positive proposal would have to declare. The central negative claim is that admissibility is not probability. If a proposal defines an admissible class of candidate histories, then it has supplied an admissibility layer, not a probability layer. Any later probability claim needs an additional declared probability object, for example a countably additive baseline measure, a conditioning rule, a weighting principle with reference measure, a stochastic kernel, or an operational map, together with separate Born/no-signaling/no-hidden-postselection checks over the final operational law. B2 records four modest no-go claims: an admissible set alone does not determine a probability measure; conditioning on admissibility is not a derivation of probability; unconstrained reweighting is not automatically no-signaling; and sector-internal record consistency does not determine external sector weights. A short RRCF special-case audit template is included only to state the corresponding probability-gap result for record-reconstruction closure. It is not a construction of a physical RRCF criterion and does not supply a probability law, selector, actualization rule, Born derivation, GR/QFT unification, or prediction.This is Paper B2 v0.2e in the public guardrail chain A -> D1 -> B1 -> C0 -> S0 -> B2. It is a public claim-control working paper and no-go/audit-taxonomy note. It is not a positive probability theory and does not validate RRCF, Complete-History Selection, or any candidate-history framework.
S0 v0.2a is a claim-control and declaration-ledger synthesis of four published guardrail papers in the Complete-History / Record-Capability sequence. Its purpose is not to propose a physical selector, probability law, Born-rule derivation, single-outcome actualization rule, measurement-problem solution, Bell/no-signaling result, or experimental prediction. Instead, S0 formulates a reusable ledger for separating representation, access/readout, record availability, admissibility, probability/weights, operational frequencies, Born/no-signaling gates, and actualization claims in candidate-history-type proposals. The synthesis organizes the public A-D1-B1-C0 sequence into four negative guardrails: reduced or coarse history structure is not a physical selector; recoverable-record diagnostics are protocol-relative; closure/admissibility is not a probability law; and decohered alternatives, accessible records, single-outcome actualization, and Born-compatible probability laws are distinct notions. The paper introduces a declaration profile, layer ledger, no-automatic-arrows rule, claim-license table, worked audit example, and claim-status classification for proposals that make stronger physical-selector, probability, Born-compatibility, record-actualization, or operational-testability claims. Passing the S0 ledger is not evidence that a proposal is true, empirically adequate, dynamically complete, or physically selected. It only means that the proposal has separated the relevant claim layers and made its additional assumptions or bridge principles explicit enough to be evaluated.This is Synthesis Paper S0 v0.2a in the Complete-History / Record-Capability working-paper sequence. It is a claim-control / declaration-ledger paper only. It introduces no physical selector, no probability law, no Born-rule derivation, no Bell/no-signaling result, no actualization rule, no quantum-mechanics replacement, and no experimental prediction. The uploaded source ZIP contains the LaTeX source. SHA256SUMS.txt provides file-integrity hashes for the uploaded PDF and source archive.
Paper B1 is a guardrail and bookkeeping working paper for complete-history-style candidate-history frameworks. It clarifies that selector language, where retained at all, should be treated only as legacy terminology for a possible model-relative closure/admissibility framing, not as a physical mechanism or within-world selection process. The paper separates five ledgers that are often conflated: candidate histories, closure/admissibility, probability or weighting structure, operational readout/record constraints, and diagnostic gates such as Born compatibility, no-signaling, and Bell-assumption bookkeeping. Its central formal point is that a closure condition C_closure may define an admissible set H_adm = {h in H_cand : C_closure(h)=1}, but this admissible set does not by itself define a probability law. B1 follows the reduced-history no-inference guardrail of Paper A and imports from D1 only the declared-access/readout/record discipline. It does not use D1 as evidence for a physical selector, closure law, probability principle, Born-rule derivation, Bell/no-signaling result, or experimental prediction. Decoherence, consistent histories, and Everettian branch language are discussed only to separate branch/record stability from admissibility, probability, and single-history actualization. The paper is not a physical model, not a replacement for quantum mechanics, not a Born-rule derivation, not a Bell/no-signaling solution, and not a prediction paper. It is a claim-control layer for later work.This is Paper B1 v0.3 in the Complete-History / Record-Capability working-paper sequence. It is a guardrail and bookkeeping paper only. It introduces no physical selector, no probability law, no Born-rule derivation, no Bell/no-signaling result, no quantum-mechanics replacement, and no experimental prediction. The uploaded source ZIP contains the LaTeX source for the working paper; SHA256SUMS.txt provides file-integrity hashes for the uploaded PDF and source archive.
B3/L0 is a pre-positive declaration ledger for later candidate probability, weight, amplitude, quantum-measure, boundary-conditioned, and operational layers in the Record-Reconstruction Closure Framework (RRCF) / Complete-History Guardrail project. It is positioned after the public guardrail chain A -> D1 -> B1 -> C0 -> S0 -> B2 -> D2/R1. B2 froze the probability-gap result that an admissibility or record-reconstruction passing class does not determine, justify, or supply a probability measure. D2/R1 then demonstrated, in a finite fixed-law Z2 lattice-gauge toy lab, that declared record maps, targets, quotient conventions, exact inverse-bucket decoders, and explicit failure semantics can make record-reconstruction diagnostics reproducible, quotient-aware, and failure-capable. D2/R1 finite counts and statuses are finite enumeration diagnostics only; they are not probabilities, frequencies, typicalities, sector weights, physical weights, empirical predictions, or evidence for real gauge theory, QFT, quantum gravity, or continuum physics. B3/L0 does not attempt to construct a positive B3 law. Its purpose is to define the declaration slots and gate structure that any later positive B3 candidate must satisfy before making probability, amplitude, operational, Born, Bell/no-signaling, actualization, or prediction claims. All displayed measures, weights, amplitudes, kernels, Born expressions, no-signaling equations, and example ansaetze are declaration slots, examples, or gate targets unless explicitly identified as standard-physics comparison formulas; none is asserted as an RRCF law. Whole-architecture status: RRCF / Complete-History is presently an audit framework and pre-theory research programme for typed record-reconstruction and closure diagnostics. It is not, in this document, a completed physical theory or an empirically confirmed ontology. Archiving or assigning a DOI to this ledger fixes a citable version of the declaration requirements; it does not certify truth, empirical adequacy, theoretical fruitfulness, community acceptance, or validation of RRCF / Complete-History Selection.
Paper C0 is a measurement- and record-channel guardrail working paper in the Complete-History / Record-Capability sequence. It clarifies the operational vocabulary needed when candidate-history frameworks use measurement, record, readout, decoder, and downstream-architecture language. The central C0 guardrail is that decohered alternatives, accessible records, single-outcome actualization, and Born-compatible probability laws are distinct notions. C0 represents the record-channel layer of measurement claims using standard quantum instruments, open-system record formation, environmental decoherence, storage/noise dynamics, decoder classes, access frames, time windows, error tolerances, and provenance conditions. A record is treated as a decodable physical carrier relative to a declared outcome alphabet, access frame, decoder convention, tolerance, time window, and noise or storage model. The main negative result is that sectorwise record consistency underdetermines sector weights. Even perfect records inside each sector do not by themselves determine external sector weights, Born weights, or a probability law. Born compatibility remains a separate probability/ensemble/protocol constraint. C0 follows Paper A, D1, and B1 as a guardrail dependency, not as an evidential chain. It does not solve the measurement problem, derive the Born rule, introduce a new probability law, provide a single-outcome actualization rule, replace quantum mechanics, solve Bell/no-signaling, or make an experimental prediction. Downstream architecture, final-boundary, photonic-loop, null-test, and chaotic-amplification motifs are treated only as future guardrails, not as C0 results.This is Paper C0 v0.2c in the Complete-History / Record-Capability working-paper sequence. It is a measurement- and record-channel guardrail paper only. It introduces no physical selector, no single-outcome actualization rule, no probability law, no Born-rule derivation, no Bell/no-signaling result, no quantum-mechanics replacement, and no experimental prediction. The uploaded source ZIP contains the LaTeX source for the working paper; SHA256SUMS.txt provides file-integrity hashes for the uploaded PDF and source archive.
This paper develops a reconstruction of probability that does not begin by assuming a probability space, a probability simplex, or the Born rule. Instead, it asks a prior foundational question: under what physical and mathematical conditions are a set of alternatives entitled to carry positive, additive probabilities at all? The construction begins with lawful histories, future interfaces, and retained records. It distinguishes coherent alternatives from exclusive empirical events, preventing multiple interfering routes from being mistaken for separate probabilistic outcomes. A future-sufficient quotient identifies distinctions that no admitted future test can detect, while a record-qualification step determines when alternatives have become genuine empirical events. Dagger-compatible comparison and positive record factorization then produce a positive comparison kernel, from which normalized event probabilities arise only after the relevant record sectors are certified as exclusive. The framework is extended beyond individual measurements. Compatible finite record refinements generate a global probability measure under explicit realizability conditions; stochastic kernels provide a compositional calculus for carrying probabilistic information through unresolved future structure; and locally classical measurement contexts are assembled into a single positive state on a generally non-Boolean effect structure. This allows globally coherent probability to exist even when no context-independent deterministic assignment of outcomes exists. On a reflection-positive Hilbert-space branch, admissible future contexts are represented by positive effects and positive normalized states by density operators. The Born state-effect law then appears as the finite-dimensional representation of a probability structure that has already been earned through record qualification, positivity, exclusivity, refinement, and contextual consistency rather than introduced as a primitive postulate. The paper also separates two mechanisms that are often conflated: quadratic Born-type weighting arises from dagger self-comparison, whereas equal probabilities for symmetric alternatives arise from symmetry of the outcome structure. A further state-effect bridge analysis classifies residual coordinate freedom and identifies an exceptional rank-two adjugate transformation with Lorentzian signature, which is removed when positive self-dual identification is required. The central interpretation is that probability can function as a lawful form of global completion: it can carry future-relevant law through unresolved structure even when deterministic uniqueness is unavailable. The paper does not derive a mechanism selecting one actual outcome and does not claim that every physical sector satisfies the stated hypotheses. Instead, it provides an explicit dependency-controlled architecture connecting lawful completion, reflection positivity, event qualification, contextuality, stochastic continuation, Hilbert reconstruction, and the Born rule.
Quantum mechanics supplies outcome probabilities through the Born rule, while measurement physics describes how interactions, decoherence, amplification, and environmental encoding produce records. We reformulate quantum admissibility around the distinction between quantum support, Born probability, operational record support, and realized record. The reformulation is motivated by a no-go result for a legacy strong ansatz in which Born probabilities are multiplied by an independently specified scalar admissibility factor: independence from the Born distribution together with arbitrary coarse-graining consistency forces that factor to be uniform, while the corresponding positive-operator construction reduces to an ordinary quantum state update. Rather than replacing this failed weighting by an unstructured support predicate, we connect record support explicitly to existing quantum-to-classical formalisms. Quantum-Darwinist redundancy, classically accessible information, quantum discord, and distance to spectrum-broadcast structure provide a context-dependent operational record profile from which prospectively specified support criteria can be constructed without modifying the Born rule. We also show why Bell correlations cannot supply the missing content of a binary support relation: a non-product joint support set is shared by classically correlated systems, while generic Bell-violating distributions may have full Cartesian support and differ only in their probabilityweights. Bell and no-signaling therefore constrain any future probability-modifying extension but do not establish relational realization as a new physical quantity. The resulting framework has three levels: a conceptual grammar, an operational record-support layer entirely within standard quantum theory, and a distinct strong route requiring independently predicted deviations from the best standard quantum-plus-apparatus model. The principal claim is consequently a boundary result: objective record support can be operationalized without a second probability law, whereas the natural scalar attempt to convert such support into probability reweighting is stronglyconstrained.